(Posted to my MySpace Weblog on January 5, 2008)
A few a hours ago I received a "friend" request from a man who brags about being a "Traditionalist Gay Catholic". So, I took the bait and asked him how he reconciles his Traditional Catholicism with his lifestyle. Thereupon he referred me to his voluminous webpage which includes this very detailed argument for why the Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality and homosexual acts is simply wrong. Well, I'll give him credit for one thing. He knows that he must give an argument. Most dissident Catholics I know, especially those at the Catholic Student Center at Washington University in St. Louis, seem to be flakes whose ability to reason was learned from a Beatles Song. "Like, all you need is love, and the gays love eachother, ergo there is nothing wrong with homosexual love." It's enough to make me reconsider the Church's Teaching against the abortion of acephalous babies. (By the way, lest my pious Catholic readers be scandalized, I should note this was meant as a very cynical joke, okay?)
But this man is far from spewing forth such acephalous mush. I repeat he gives a very detailed argument for his adamantly heterodox, if not heretical, position, an argument that merits a very thoughtful response. But I was planning to read Chomsky all day today. I am now reading Chomsky on how the United States used bogus Cold War Propaganda to lie us into one war after another, thereby showing that there was indeed an Evil Empire, and it was not the Soviet Union. This is not to say, of course, that the U.S.S.R. was not evil. No one but an idolater of Stalin can read accounts about, say, the Soviet secret police and prison system and conclude that the Soviet Union was not evil, but it is clear that it never had the economic or military might to be a global hegemon the way the United States was and is.
But, as I am wont to do, I digress. I just wanted to explain why I am not going to reply to this "Traditionalist Gay Catholic" at length today. I really want to curl up with Noam, okay? I will say this, though. The very term "Traditionalist Gay Catholic" is oxymoronic. If he were really as traditionalist as he says he is, he would accept and not resist the traditional teaching of the Church. If he instead really believes his own argument, then he should be honest, leave what he believes to be a profoundly homophobic and dishonest institution, and found his own church or become a high church Anglican. I think he should openly declare himself a gnostic myself.
But he means "traditionalism" in the sense of the word that the Lebfevrites have given it when they hijacked it. That is to say "liturgical traditionalism". This guy loves the old Latin Mass. Fine, I do as well, but I also note that I refuse now to call myself a "trad". What started out as a movement clamoring for the return of liturgical reverence and solemnity--that had been nearly demolished by guitar masses, hymns that sound like discarded jingles for McDonald's, and, of course, an atrocious translation done by semicephalous pelagians--has become nothing more than a fetishization of a fey liturgical aesthetism. So it should not surprise that such a movement would attract such absurdities as a "Traditionalist Gay Catholic".
I write this in the full knowledge that the overwhelming majority of the "Catholic Gays" either attend or even celebrate the Novus Ordo and probably regard the old Latin Mass to be a dangerous throwback to the days of the stake, that widely recognized symbol of murderous religious intolerance, but from the "trad" perspective this is to be expected. One of the boilerplate "trad" arguments for the old Latin Mass-- "The Mass of the Ages", as "trads" love to call it, thereby suggesting with a laughable historical ignorance that the Missal of 1962 represents what Christ Himself celebrated at the Last Supper, down to the very last quaesumus--is that it is a bulwark against heresy and the Novus Ordo sluices all kinds of heresies in. The idea is that this "Mass of the Ages" has a majestic beauty so overwhelming that it simply awes the participants into kneeling assent to Catholic Orthodoxy.
Really? Did the old Latin Mass prevent Doctor Luder from denying all but two of the Seven Sacraments? Did it prevent the lecherous Zwingli from denying the Real Presence of the Eucharist? Did it prevent that great big flood of heresies, better known as the Protestant Reformation, that monstrous movement that ushered in the era of relativism, subjectivism, and emotionalism, the era in which we still find ourselves living right now? Did it prevent the Jansenists from being really constipated Calvinists? I don't think so, although very many "trads" do not think the Jansenists were heretics but regard them as heroic standard-bearers of the True Remnant and do their best to imitate them in all things, especially in their utter lack of any humour or joy. That's another big reason why I am not a "trad".
And, needless to say, the old Latin Mass has not prevented my wanna-be MySpace "friend" from his heresy of championing deliberately willed sterility in the sex act as a legitimate expression of love.
Oh, if you are wondering why a Catholic (who tries to be devout despite his totally depraved, lecherous urges) like me is reading a man who is for legal abortion and advocates homosexual rights, I will simply say that you have not read my profile. Besides I have never read what Chomsky has written about abortion or gay rights, and I really do not know that he has; I have only been told that he supports legal abortion and civil unions for gays and lesbians. I would not be surprised at all if this hearsay were true. Most of my anti-war, anti-American Imperialism comrades are for legal abortion and civil unions/gay "marriage", all of them it seems, except for Patrick J. Buchanan, the polemicists of The Wanderer, and, yes, the Catholic "trads" who think Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell are the magisterium and will vote for Ron Paul in droves.
It really pisses me off, frankly, that the crowd most vociferously against the hybristic military endeavors of the United States are but for a few exceptions the same people who have no problem either with the legalization of baby murder or using the law to make socially acceptable the very premise of the porn industry, namely the deliberately willed sterility of the sex act merely for the sake of ephemeral pleasure. In fact, one of the most prominent critics of American Imperialism and its goal to make the world supine for global coorporate incarnations of rapacious avarice writes regularly for the pages of the very vile Hustler
p.s. I should also add that I am for gay rights insofar as gays and lesbian are human beings but think, of course, that basic human rights do not entail a right to re-define marriage.